THE CITY OF SOUTH BAY, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY EARL ARMSTRONG, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of South Bay appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss a severed complaint, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because proper process had not been served on the municipality. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellant bear the burden of establishing jurisdictional defects through a complete record, and the record presented was insufficient to demonstrate error.
The appellant bears the burden of establishing jurisdictional error through a proper and complete appellate record. Jurisdictional defects resulting from process or service of process defects will not be considered unless such defects are demonstrated in the record presented to the appellate court. The record presented was insufficient to establish error.
“The burden of establishing error is always on the appellant. An order or decree comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and before there will be a reversal the appellant must present facts to clearly demonstrate error.”
Establishes the fundamental burden-of-proof allocation in appellate practice that governs the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Earl Armstrong filed suit against the City of South Bay. Count II of the complaint was severed by court order, and the city was required to plea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Over Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry Earl Armstrong, plaintiff, brought suit against the City of South Bay, a municipal corporation. The court ordered Count II of the complaint severed with leave to proceed by separate action and required the defendant to plead to the severed cause within ten days after service of a copy of the severed complaint. The city moved to dismiss the severed complaint on the grounds that it constituted a new suit and that process was not served upon the city as required by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 1.3(c) 30 F.S.A.
The court denied the city’s motion to dismiss and this interlocutory appeal was taken. The record furnished by the parties on appeal contains certain pleadings and orders from the severed suit as well as the original suit. We feel, however, that the record is insufficient for us to make a determination of the issue presented, namely, whether the court has jurisdiction over the defendant in the case appealed.
The city argues that it is not under a duty to submit a record to show that jurisdiction was not acquired by the lower court when there is nothing in the record presented which demonstrates that jurisdiction was obtained. The plaintiff’s position is that it is the party who raises the error on appeal who has the burden of establishing the facts upon which the error is grounded. We agree.
The burden of establishing error is always on the appellant. An order or decree comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and before -there will be a reversal the appellant must present facts to clearly demonstrate error. Canning v. Norton, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 737; Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 788. The duty is upon the appellant to bring to the appellate court the proper record of facts upon which the errors assigned are based. Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 90.
Jurisdictional defects resulting from defects in process or service of process will not be considered by the appellate court unless such defects are contained in the record. Assignments of error on denial of motion to quash summons and process have been held to be not reviewable when the facts upon which the motion was grounded are hot shown by the record. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc. v. Davis, 1960, 271 Ala. 474, 124 So.2d 441; Moore v. Baker, 1943, 222 N.C. 736, 24 S.E.2d 749.
There are two ways that jurisdiction of the city could have been obtained in the severed case. Additional service of process could have been made or, in the alternative, appropriate copies of the record in the original case, including a showing of valid service of process, could have been encompassed in the record of the severed case, i. e., see F.S. § 46.08, F.S.A. The record presented to this court contains neither a showing that the appropriate records of the original case were not brought into the record of the severed case nor a record evidencing a lack of process. Without this-record we are unable to consider the validity of the order denying the city’s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Ernestine A. King, 207 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ered by the trial court and upon which that court based its decision, it is appellant’s duty to present such a record. Broward County Port Authority etc. v. F. M. Rule & Co., Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 82; City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 21. Affirmed.…
-
Blacharski v. Watts, 268 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…its responsibility to review the judgment as appellant here suggests. Rather it is the appellant who failed in his responsibility to present an adequate record for purposes of supporting his appeal. See City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 21. [*467] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the circuit court’s order of affirmance was in compliance with the essential requirements of law and deny certiorari. Certiorari denied. REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Valarie v. Stephens, 207 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…ffiant and this motion was denied. On the basis of the record we cannot conclude that the plaintiff has sustained her burden of clearly demonstrating error in the trial court’s denial of the oral motion, City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 21. Affirmed. OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concurs. CROSS, J., concurs specially.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Best v. Barnette, 130 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- S. Nat'l Bank OF Fort Walton Beach v. Young, 142 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Wilbert R. Canning for Invs. Mortg. Corp. v. Norton, 155 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)